HC Deb 16 February 1983 vol 37 cc348-88

13. In this Order—

I rise a second time this afternoon to move an allocation of time motion. This Government's record shows that we take such a step only occasionally.

I said earlier this afternoon that I would say a few words on the general question of timetabling during this debate. In particular I have in mind early-day motion 298, in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Neale) and others, which has obtained over 100 signatories.

I propose to make only very tentative and general observations on the procedure in Standing Committees; but I have no doubt the matter will be raised again, as it has been in the past.

When my hon. Friend raised this matter with me last week, in business questions, I said that I regarded his general proposition as wholly appropriate to today's debate. It is, however, not a matter that can, or in any sense should, be decided today. The issues raised have far-reaching implications for our procedures, and in its previous consideration of the subject the House has rejected the idea of change. There is, of course, nothing sacrasanct about that decision. Nevertheless, it is clearly right that those who feel strongly on either side of the question should take this opportunity to express their views. Those who listened to our earlier debate this afternoon will not be surprised that strong men should have been moved to strong emotions by the events in Standing Committee H.

The possibility of the automatic timetabling of all Bills before they enter a Standing Committee was considered in detail by the Select Committee on Procedure in 1977–78 in the course of its review of the House's procedures in relation to public business.

The Committee concluded against general timetabling. Its objections, which were set out in paragraph 2.34 of the report were broadly that timetabling in advance would not necessarily ensure that time was spent on those matters of most interest to the House, since these would not always be anticipated; that it would lessen the incentive for Ministers to convince by argument—I do not believe this point was concluded in irony; that it would deprive the Opposition of the power to seek concessions through delay; and that it would probably lead to a smaller proportion of Committee time being available for Opposition speakers.

I acknowledge at once that some hon. Members would wish to argue that these considerations should not be regarded as decisive. Nevertheless, what cannot be in doubt is the fundamental nature of the issues raised. In my mind these lead decisively to the view that we should not contemplate any such changes in our procedures at this stage of a Parliament.

Throughout the debate on the preceding guillotine motion it was strongly argued by every Opposition Member who spoke that the measure could only be understood in the context of the Government's determination to hold a general election in June. I make no comment whatever which is designed to speculate upon the date of the general election, but if all those speeches from the Opposition Benches had any credence, they would immediately rule out any possibility of the matter being considered in any depth during the balance of time left available to this Parliament. However, I make these remarks in the context of a constructive debate earlier this afternoon. A new Parliament beckons and I have no doubt that our procedures will be considered and debated anew.

Mr. Gerry Neale (Cornwall, North)

Would my right hon. Friend nevertheless agree that the end of a Parliament is the ideal time for several matters to be considered? Members' pay is an example. The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) has said that he holds high hopes of being in the Government after the next election. Now is the time when we could come to agreement about the unsatisfactory procedures with a view to bringing changes into effect after the next election, whichever Government are in power.

Mr. Biffen

The House will be fully extended in the few months that remain between now and the next election without the diversion of setting up a Procedure Committee specifically to deal with the point that exercises my hon. Friend. I can well imagine that the Chamber will re-echo with the arguments that we heard earlier and that consideration will be given to setting up a Procedure Committee in the next Parliament.

The Housing and Building Control Bill has two main purposes. Both are important. The first is to extend the right to buy to thousands of public sector tenants who at present fall outside the provisions of the Housing Act 1980. To one group of these tenants—some 40,000 to 50,000 who live in leasehold property—the Government have a long-standing commitment. It was our stated intention that they should be given the right to buy in 1980. That proved impossible in the legislative time available, but the commitment to those tenants remains. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made that clear just a year ago: Our last legislation did not cover that case. It should be covered. It is our intention to cover it. We have a high priority to do so. I cannot promise my hon. Friend that there will be legislation during this Session of Parliament. However, if not, we shall try in the next Session."—[Official Report, 11 February 1982; Vol. 15, c. 1111.] The Bill will honour that commitment. Tenants are waiting to buy their homes, in some cases after long periods of frustration at the hands of their councils. We do not wish to see them wait any longer.

The Bill also provides the right to buy for those tenants of charitable housing associations and trusts who live in housing financed by the Exchequer out of housing association grants. That will further extend the opportunity to purchase their homes to some 80,000 tenants and put them in the same position as tenants of non-charitable associations. Arrangements are being made to safeguard any marginal investment of charitable funds at their modern value when such houses are sold.

It is perfectly possible that some charities will find that, as a result, they have extra capital available for re-investment in their housing, but we believe that where dwellings have been publicly funded and provided to meet general housing needs, the tenants should have the right to buy.

For those tenants who cannot afford to buy outright, the Bill provides the right to a shared ownership lease. They will have the opportunity to buy a lease representing at least 50 per cent. of the equity while continuing to pay rent on the remainder. Later, they can buy the remaining share of the equity, in stages if necessary, and thus become outright owner-occupiers when their resources permit. The concept of shared ownership is steadily gaining ground. The Bill will make it available to qualified tenants as of right. The second main purpose of the Bill is to enable the private sector to play a part in the system of building control and to reform and simplify the building regulations.

The present system has its origins in the 19th century. It is exceedingly complex: the relevant secondary legislation at present runs to more than 350 pages. There is general agreement in the construction industry that the recasting of the regulations is long overdue. The proposals in the Bill derive from wide and thorough consultation on the Command Paper issued by the Government in February 1981, which itself followed a series of consultations and public discussions going back to 1979. In particular, there is a common desire—shared by all the professional institutions concerned, by designers, builders, and local authority building control departments—for new building regulations following the model on which we consulted extensively nearly a year ago. We cannot make the progress we want in this important matter, where there is a concensus that progress is needed, until this Bill is enacted. Those are the most important aspects of the Bill. There are others of great value, but I hope that I have said enough to demonstrate the importance that the Government attach to this measure.

The House gave the Bill a Second Reading on 23 November, by a majority of 320 to 203. The Committee has now spent about 90½ hours considering it. It has met 25 times, and the Official Report runs to over 1,000 columns. The Committee has sat until midnight or later on four occasions, and once till 2 am.

The House would like to know of the progress so far. The Bill has 43 clauses and nine schedules, and falls into two roughly equal parts. Consideration of the first part, on the right to buy, was completed on 3 February, after some 73 hours of debate. Seventeen and a half hours were devoted to debate on clause 2 alone. After 17½ further hours of debate in the past two weeks, the Committee is still considering part II, which deals with building control. The details of the provisions for the recasting of building regulations have yet to be considered.

The Government naturally hoped for constructive discussion and reasonable progress in Committee. That has not been the case. Ample time has been allowed for full and detailed scrutiny, but no more than half the Bill has yet been considered. The Government must therefore arrange for the remaining stages to be concluded within a reasonable time.

The motion provides that the Bill shall be reported to the House by 1 March. That will allow the Committee a further period of at least 26½ hours, if the Opposition wish, in which to complete its consideration of the remaining parts of the Bill. Proceedings on Report and Third Reading will then be concluded in one day thereafter, at one hour after midnight.

I therefore commend the motion to the House. The Bill contains important proposals, whose implementation is eagerly awaited by many. It is the Government's responsibility to carry through its proposals and so honour the commitments that have been given.

7.16 pm
Mr. John Silkin (Deptford)

I was a little concerned for the Leader of the House when he rose a moment ago, in case he read out the notes that he had made for the first timetable motion today. It is not quite true that this Government only occasionally introduce guillotine motions. For the record, I think that I am right to say that this is the third guillotine motion in one month. That is quite a record — [Interruption.] It is amazing how, when a trap is set, the whole Treasury Bench invariably falls into it. I was about to ask what was so wrong with timetable motions that the Leader of the House should feel that he had to wash the blood from his hands by saying that this Government rarely introduced them. The point is that all Governments introduce timetable motions. They have to do so. It is well known.

The real question is whether the timetable motion is being introduced for the right Bill at the right time, and not whether 100 timetable motions should be introduced in one day. However, that might tax the Leader of the House a bit too much. It is the appropriateness of the motion that we must argue about— [Interruption.] I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot)—now Leader of the Opposition—only did three timetable motions in a day, but they were all right and they all had to be done. That is the difference.

The Leader of the House referred to the interesting suggestion in the early-day motion. I too will not go into the details now, but it is a fascinating subject and I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman referred to it. Many years ago, when I was Minister of Public Building and Works, I met the late Iain Macleod. We discussed matters and he asked me what was new. I said that we had plans for a new parliamentary building. Incidentally, I am glad to see the Secretary of State for Defence—the former Secretary of State for the Environment—in the Chamber. Iain Macleod said, "My boy"—I was very young at the time—"there are two things that always come round with every new generation of Members of Parliament. One is a new parliamentary building and the other is the timetabling of all Bills." I have heard it and seen it about three times. It is amazing how much more popular the idea of timetabling Bills is when one is in government rather than in opposition. I have the strong feeling that those—not all, perhaps—who take a radical, progressive view of timetabling all Bills, will take a totally different view when they are in opposition in a few months time. That does not mean that it is not right to do so.

Mr. Neale

I have listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman's argument. I acknowledge that I am new to Parliament, as from the last election. Does he feel any concern that, irrespective of which party has been in office, there has been a relentless increase in the use of the guillotine? As I outlined in my speech in our earler debate, it has risen from six in the 1950s, to 13 in the 1960s, to 21 in the 1970s, and to probably well over 30 in the 1980s.

Mr. Silkin

We should really deal with the timetable motion, but I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's question. The rise is due partly to the enormous expansion of legislation. It is as simple as that. There was a time when a Conservative Government would have been ashamed to legislate at all. Now they produce legislation at the rate that the factories produced goods before the Government closed them.

There is a great deal to be said for the timetabling of all Bills, subject to certain safeguards. The first, inevitable, safeguard is that the Government must present their Bill in reasonable time. The Opposition must be given the fullest opportunity to debate and scrutinise and make changes where they can do so. Those are the necessary guarantees. Let us assume that that admirable position existed today, that we were debating Second Reading and considering the Bill's timetable. It simply could not be timetabled to meet those tenets. The Bill is not one Bill, but two unrelated Bills. It is different from some of the Bills about which the Leader of the House and I have crossed swords. We do so gently, of course—they are swords with velvet covers.

The Leader of the House said that there were 43 clauses in the Bill. He is a fair man, and would be the first to agree that the last six clauses are not important. They fit in, and must be there, but there is not much to discuss on them. The first 37 clauses are the important clauses. They can be split into two halves—one of 19 clauses and one of 18 clauses; part I and part II. Of course, part III follows on from part II, but is not important.

Part I, a Bill in itself, deals with the right to buy. The right hon. Gentleman gave us a potted version—

Mr. Ted Graham (Edmonton)

A potty version.

Mr. Silkin

No, the right hon. Gentleman put the matter fairly.

We disagree with the Bill. We disagree with every word and every principle contained in it. It is highly political and highly controversial. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman spoke in a low-key voice does not make it any the less highly political or highly controversial.

To that first Bill has been added a second Bill, also highly controversial and highly political. It seeks to change the building regulations. Its authors would say that it was intended to bring the regulations up to date. I hope that I do not read too much into my hon. Friends' thoughts—they take the view that some aspects of the regulations do need changing, and that it is adequate and reasonable to do so. But they object to the highly party political nature of part II, which deals with privatisation—a terrible word: I am not sure where it originated, but it means taking away from the public its assets, ownership, and duties, and allowing private entrepreneurs to adopt them. That is highly controversial. I cannot see any similarity or link between the two Bills—yet they are in the same Bill.

If we consider the first 19 clauses to be one Bill, it has not taken an unreasonable time to discuss—precisely two months from the time that it entered Committee to the time that it reached clause 20. The Leader of the House spoke of 71½ hours being spent on clause 2 alone, but he forgot to mention that six clauses were passed in one sitting. On average, that is not a great deal of time.

If we view part II on the same basis, and say that it is another Bill—equally controversial and difficult for the Opposition to accept because of our wholly different philosophy—that Bill would also take two months to discuss. That would take us to the beginning of April. Is that such a terrible thing? Of course it is not. The truth is that the Government are engaged in clearing the decks of all legislation. I do not wish to stop my hon. Friends speaking in the debate, but I wish to take a moment to think aloud. If, as is always possible, the Prime Minister changes her mind and decides to hold an election not this year, but next year, what will we discuss next session? We might ask the Select Committees to give us interim report after interim report, but is would be a rather boring session. I assure Conservative Members that there will be no guillotine or timetable motion then. The difficulty is that there will be too much time. The Government are clearing the decks for a general election. I do not blame them for doing so—they are entitled to do so—but that is not a reason for timetabling this Bill. It, of all Bills, will have not just a marginal effect, but will affect every local authority in Britain. It deserves the closest possible scrutiny.

I am afraid that the Bill will not receive that scrutiny. We must divide on a timetable motion. We need not do so, because the time is there to do the job properly. What will be the result? The provisions for the right to buy will create great difficulties. The Opposition are in good company in that view—not political company, but clerical and charitable company. As for part II, I fear that the Government, in their ideology, have done something which, to be fair, they had not fully intended to do. They may be setting up a web of corruption. Corruption does not arise where there is independent supervision, but where people are linked and the temptations are enormous. That could lead to bad housing.

In the east end of London during the blitz, words written on the walls of destroyed houses said, "Jerry built them, Jerry bombed them." If the Bill is allowed to become law, we may see written, "Jerry built them, Jerry sold them."

The Opposition oppose the timetable motion, for the reasons that I have given. Above all, we oppose the legislation contained in the two Bills that form the corpus of the one Bill. We will repeal them the moment that we are returned to power.

7.30 pm
Viscount Cranborne (Dorset, South)

I understand from the comments of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that during the previous timetable debate many strong feelings were expressed about whether Bills should be guillotined from the beginning. I apologise to my right hon. Friend and to other right hon. and hon. Members for missing the debate and the many words of wisdom that were no doubt spoken during the course of it. However, I make no apology for returning to an issue that my right hon. Friend disposed of when he opened the debate with his customary elegance and zest.

My right hon. Friend referred to the proceedings and report of the Procedure Committee for 1977–78. From that, he adduced four reasons why Bills should not be guillotined after Second Reading. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale) I am conscious that I have only recently come into this august institution. Therefore, I take cognisance all the more humbly of the anecdotes that the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) told about the days when he was a tyro such as I.

Nevertheless, with all the perhaps unmerited self-confidence of youth, in spite of the strictures of the late lain Macleod, I am tempted to press my right hon. Friend for an end to the curious ritual that all of us have witnessed during this Parliament. It is an 18th-century ritual, reminiscent of nothing so much as the warfare of the battle of Fontenoy at which the battle was joined and the enemy who fired first lost the battle. Everybody knew that that would happen, just as the Government know what will happen when, in Committee, they allow the Opposition to fire first, as they have so frequently and at such length, during the proceedings that all of us have had to endure for so long and so boringly.

My right hon. Friend knows well, as all of us do, what that ritual is. I shall not go over the ground so eloquently covered today. However, he adduced four arguments against regular timetables from the Select Committee report in 1977, and I should like to refer briefly to three of them.

I think that I heard my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House correctly, and from my reading of the report I gather that a great deal is made of the claim that the Opposition's only weapon is delay. I have been told by no less a person—I hope that he will not mind me quoting him when he is not in the Chamber—than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, "When you are in opposition, my boy, you will realise that delay is the only weapon open to you, and you will not espouse the cause of efficiency that you espouse with such enthusiasm now."

I have enormous respect for all those right hon. and hon. Members who have spent so many years adorning this Chamber. Who am I to dispute their experience, however greatly daring? However, the excuse that is given for the hours that we endure in Committee, during sittings motions and over the initial clauses of a controversial Bill does not really hold water.

I am told by people who are perhaps better versed in these matters than I am that the whole business of reaching the time when a timetable motion is to be introduced is now part of the elaboration of the very ritual that so many of us find deplorable. I am told—my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will no doubt be able to put me right if I am wrong—that over the past few years a consensus is reached whereby both the Opposition and the Government Front Benches judge that the time is right for a guillotine motion to be entertained on the Floor of the House. That time comes after about 80 or 90 hours of debate, after a few late-night sittings have proved the virility of the Government and the Opposition, and after, no doubt, the Government Whip on the Committee, if he has any pull with the Leader of the House—as I am sure that the Government Whip on this Committee has—has ensured that a guillotine motion is appropriate.

I am willing to accept that that is not so, if my right hon. Friend tells me, but, if it is, we have the beginnings of the sort of 18th-century warfare ritual about which I was complaining in the earlier evolutions before the guillotine stage. If that is so, the argument that the only weapon of the Opposition is time is nothing more than an illusion woven by proponents of the status quo who want to preserve it for reasons that are beyond me.

I am conscious that this is a short debate, but I wish to refer to the other reasons given by my right hon. Friend. He said, and the Select Committee report refers to the fact, that the Committee stage gives Opposition speakers the opportunity to air their views. This is unquestionably true on any Standing Committee on which I have served. If it is concerned with a controversial Bill, the Government Whip on duty will virtually string one up from the rafters of the Whips' Office if one so much as opens one's mouth. After all, he wants to get the Bill through. The only Members who are allowed to talk during the opening stages of the Bill before a guillotine has been introduced are Opposition Back Benchers.

No matter how expert many of my hon. Friends are who are members of the Standing Committee—although there are many present tonight who are members of this Standing Committee, I am not one—they talk at length and give the Committee the benefit of their views at their peril. It is undoubtedly true that the Opposition have a chance to air their views on the Bill, but it makes the discussion more than a little one-sided. Does such discussion give the Bill the airing that it deserves?

On the third reason given by my right hon. Friend, there was touching agreement and consensus between the two Front Benches. I am told by almost as old a hand as the right hon. Member for Deptford that a Back Bencher must beware when the two Front Benches agree about anything. Therefore, I must be all the more careful when considering this third reason given by my right hon. Friend, because both he and the right hon. Member for Deptford agreed wholeheartedly on it.

My right hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman said that at the beginning of consideration of a Bill in Committee, it is virtually impossible to know how a proper balance of discussion can develop. That may be so, but the right hon. Member for Deptford is, at least in part, condemned out of his own mouth. When discussing the nature and composition of the Bill, he said that anybody could see that the final six clauses of the Bill were not all that important, but the other 37 clauses were.

Mr. John Silkin

I said that the first 37 clauses contained the meat of the Bill and the controversy. The remaining clauses naturally follow. Of course they are important. They would not be in the Bill if they were not.

Viscount Cranborne

It is touching that the right hon. Gentleman approves of the Government's sense of priorities and recognises that what the Government propose is important, even in the final six clauses. He implies that he can tell by reading the Bill that the final six clauses are not controversial and that the meat of the Bill is in the first 37 clauses. We begin to see the start of some consensus.

The right hon. Gentleman subsequently discussed the nature of the Bill. He said that, in effect, it falls into two parts and that it is really two Bills. This begins to make us recognise that it is possible, when reading a Bill, to get some idea of where the argument will fall and where it will not. I do not have the advantage of being a lawyer, like the right hon. Gentleman, but I am told—he will be able to advise me about this—that two opposing banisters in court will spend quite a lot of time agreeing where the common ground lies. Consequently, they are able to concentrate the hours that they spend in court on areas where there is disagreement. To some extent this must be true of considering a Bill in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman's judgment of the first 37 clauses and the nature of the final six condemned himself to some extent and supported, to a degree, the argument that I am advancing.

I support the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North that we reconsider the refusal of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to examine procedure during the remaining months of this Parliament. I do not know what legislative plans my right hon. Friends have for the remainder of this Parliament. I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Deptford is right when he says that there will be little for Parliament to legislate about. If so, I am delighted. The Conservative party would like to be the party of less legislation, and I hope that that will be so in future.

If the right hon. Gentleman is right and there is not much for us to do in the way of legislation during the remainder of this Parliament, I submit, in all humility, that there might be worse things for us to do than to discuss the procedures of the House and to clear the decks with a reform that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends feel increasingly to be important so that, after winning the next election, the Conservative Government will be able to address themselves to new legislative measures with more efficiency than this Government have been allowed to do under the present procedures.

I support the motion but with less enthusiasm than I would have shown had the measure been introduced after Second Reading rather than halfway through the Bill's consideration in Committee.

7.43 pm
Mr. Allan Roberts (Bootle)

I oppose the motion. I do not believe for one second that the time proposed for the debates in the motion will be adequate fully to discuss the Bill.

The Bill does three things. First, it extends the right to buy to the tenants of charitable housing associations and rides roughshod through the concept of charitable law and the status of charitable housing associations, and of all other charities such as private and public schools. Secondly, the Bill gives council tenants and housing association tenants the right to purchase part of their house or flat if they cannot afford to purchase it all. That is one of the most ludicrous housing proposals that the Government have made. Thirdly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) has said, roe Bill proposes the privatisation of building regulations and building controls. That is a significant and important issue, because in the final analysis it amounts to life or death. If buildings are dangerous, or if they fall down, loss of life or limb can result.

The Bill is part and parcel of the Government "s devastating and doctrinaire attack on the public rented sector. It is a continuation of the Government's housing policies, which are part of their economic and industrial strategy as well as their housing strategy. The Government's aim through their administrative and legislative actions is to prevent either central Government or local government from interfering in the workings of Britain's economy for the benefit of the community, for the majority. It is their aim to hand over the running of the country to the private sector and free enterprise. They want to do that in housing and they are proceeding to do so through this Bill in the same way as they wish to proceed in areas of economic and social activity.

The Government are attempting by means of the Bill, as they did in the Housing Act 1980 and in other actions taken by the Minister for Housing and Construction, to hand over the future of Britain's housing to the private rented sector. They started the process with the 1980 Act and they are continuing it with the Bill.

The Government's aim in the 1980 legislation was to revitalise the private rented sector. They decontrolled 200,000 tenancies and invented a new form of tenancy called assured tenancy, which means that if anyone builds a new house or flat he can let it in the private rented sector without being subject to Rent Act controls. The Government have enabled private landlords' rents to be reviewed every two years instead of every three. In other words, they have increased rents—because "review" is a euphemism for increasing rents. They also introduced a concept called shorthold, an entirely new concept which means that tenants of private landlords have security of tenure for only the period of a shorthold tenancy. At the end of the agreement, whether it be one, two, three, four or five years, the landlord can evict the tenant with only 14 days' notice. The tenant then has to find somewhere else to live.

That legislation was an attempt to revitalise the private rented sector and to push people back on to being dependent upon that sector. It was argued by the Conservative party and Ministers that there was a shortage of houses because of wicked Rent Acts passed by successive Labour Governments controlling rents in the private sector and giving security of tenure to the tenants of private landlords. They claimed that the Rent Acts prevented the private sector from investing capital in the private sector because it knew that it would not secure a return on the capital invested.

The argument ran that it was necessary only to lift rent restrictions and allow people to invest capital in private housing and enjoy a greater return on the capital invested. It was said that against that background, and with the opportunity to obtain vacant possession of properties more easily by being able to evict tenants, the problem would be solved. The Government told us that there would then be a boom in the private sector, investment in it and the ending of the housing crisis. Alas, it did not work—and for one reason. The other sectors are a more attractive proposition to anyone who is in housing need. We subsidise the other sectors and do not subsidise the private landlord.

We subsidise the public rented sector. Anyone who can gain access to it will be better housed and pay a lower rent than someone who is housed in the private rented sector. People therefore turn to the private sector when they cannot get into the public sector. That is why the Government have decided to destroy the public rented sector through administrative actions. They have ensured that it does not increase. There is hardly any money for building in the public rented sector, whether they be council houses or housing association houses. Having started their attack on the public sector, the Government have turned with the same vengeance on the housing association movement, charitable or otherwise. They are attempting to destroy that as well.

The Government forced people to be dependent on the private landlord by stopping extra provision for public sector housing. The second stage was to set about destroying the existing public rented sector. They have done that by forcing local authorities not so much to sell their houses to sitting tenants as virtually to give them away at half-price discounts. The Government's legislation of 1980 made it virtually impossible for any local authority, even if it was elected on a policy of not selling council houses, not to sell those houses. They also introduced regulations and discounts that made it almost impossible for any tenant in his right mind not to see that he was being given a golden handshake paid for by the local authority's rate and rent payers. They reduced the public rented stock so that relets would not be available and people in housing need would be forced back on to the private sector which the Government are trying to revitalise.

Having failed, through the 1980 legislation and the right-to-buy provisions contained in it, to destroy the public rented sector to the extent that they wished, the Government are now making it far easier for tenants to purchase their properties. At the same time, they are making life more difficult for local authorities. When a tenant cannot afford to buy all his house or flat, the Government are introducing measures that will enable him to buy part of that property. The tenant will be able to start with the toilet and move on to the bathroom. Such tenants hope eventually to be able to afford all their property. However, there is a catch. If a tenant buys half his property and rents half of it, repairs will not be carried out. If he buys the front door, the back door will not be repaired. That is a stupid feature of this legislation that must be debated much more fully than the timetable motion allows.

As well as forcing the right-to-buy provisions on local authorities to destroy the public rented sector and as well as extending those provisions in the present legislation by introducing the idea of part-purchase, the Government are turning their attention to the charitable housing associations. In 1980, even this Government had the sense to exempt them from the right-to-buy provisions. It is not simply members of the Labour party, Socialists and people on the Left who oppose this legislation; it is the charitable housing associations. Many of the people who staff and run them would be at home in any Conservative constituency association. They did not believe that the axe would be wielded against them by a reasonable, middle-of-the-road Conservative Government. This is not a reasonable middle-of-the-road Government. In their blind attack on the public rented sector, the Government have turned on charities and charitable housing associations. That must be fully discussed as it affects the concept of charitable law.

One way to destroy the public rented sector and to push people back on to the private landlord is to increase the cost of the public rented sector to tenants. To make their right-to-buy provisions and discounts and the purchase of council houses and housing association properties attractive, the Government must make continuing to rent unattractive in the public sector. They are doing that in several ways. One is to force up the costs to the tenant. That can be done by increasing rents, by cutting subsidies to local authorities so that local authorities must increase rents. Moreover, by prescribing high rent increases and taking away subsidy, the Government are ensuring that adequate maintenance of the existing housing stock cannot be carried out. Therefore, tenants are tempted even further to exercise their right to buy. That is all part of the strategy to destroy the public rented sector.

The figures are devastating. In 1979, when the previous Labour Government left office, the average council house rent was £6.40. It is now £13.54. Moreover, another 85p is to go on top of that. One must also add the cost of rates. The figures that I have given are an average and include areas where rents are traditionally low. In areas such as London, Liverpool and Birmingham, where there are housing problems, rents are much higher.

The hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) said in Committee that an argument in favour of extending the right to buy to housing association tenants and strengthening that right for local authority council house tenants was that it was advantageous for tenants to be owner-occupiers. When he tried to justify the discounts and bonuses, he said that owner-occupiers paid a larger percentage of their income in costs that are directly associated with housing. The matter was not adequately debated because the Government Whip kept moving the closure. That is why we now need an opportunity to debate the issue more fully. The hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth also attempted to use the argument that council house tenants were subsidised more than owner-occupiers to justify a saving to the local authorities' exchequers, by selling council houses.

I have some fascinating figures. If one examines the amount of income tax relief on interest that owner-occupiers receive on their mortgages, one finds that in 1982–83, the Exchequer will forgo £2,150 million. That works out at an average of £371 per owner-occupier. About 5,800,000 owner-occupiers have mortgages and receive that subsidy. Even if one divides the total number of owner-occupiers in 1981–11,935,000—into the £2,150 million that owner-occupiers will receive in income tax relief, one sees that each owner-occupier will receive £210 a year. That calculation includes owner-occupiers who have received subsidies but no longer have a mortgage. That figure should be contrasted with the subsidy that council house tenants receive. There are 6,574,000 council house tenants. That is not an insignificant number of people. The total Government subsidy for those 6.5 million families through the housing revenue account in 1982–83 is only £592 million. We should compare that with the £2,150 million that will be given in income tax relief to owner-occupiers.

Local authorities have to pay rate fund contributions into housing revenue accounts. They are claimed to be a subsidy as well although many are income maintenance because of contributions to rebates and so on. The total rate fund contribution, on top of the £592 million, is £325 million. If one adds the two together, the subsidy, if it is a subsidy—many things are paid for in the housing revenue account that are not a direct subsidy to the rents of council tenants—averages out at £187 per council tenant in 1982–83, compared with £371 to the average owner-occupier.

I am concerned that the Bill should not be guillotined because of the consequences that the legislation, as part of the Government's policies, will have on the people in my constituency who live in council and housing association accommodation. Many people on the waiting lists of the local authority want council or housing association accommodation. In Sefton, the number of council tenants is 22,430. Government subsidy to the Sefton housing revenue account for the current financial year is £3,274,000, a very low figure. The Government do not do much to justify it because they will not encourage the building of council houses. The lowest possible rate fund contribution from any local authority is £248,000, so there is a total of only £3,522,000 in the local authority's housing revenue account. The average subsidy per council tenant in Sefton is £157 a year—if it was a subsidy, which it is not. It is not there to hold the rents down. It is used to run services—not to build council houses, but to do other things that benefit the whole community and not just the council tenants.

Those figures show what the Government have been doing. They have been trying to destroy the public rented sector to force people into either being dependent on the private rented sector or buying their council accommodation because of high rents, cuts in subsidy and lack of repairs.

I shall consider the likely consequences of the right-to-buy provisions, if they are not more fully debated, in the metropolitan borough of Sefton in my constituency of Bootle. We should oppose those provisions. One can get a picture of what will happen to the housing association rented accommodation in Sefton from what has happened to the council accommodation that has or has not been sold. There are 22,430 council dwellings in the metropolitan borough of Sefton. Most are in Bootle. Before local government reorganisation, Bootle had a Labour council that built houses, which Crosby, Formby and Southport did not do. Of the 22,430 dwellings, 3,370 have been sold already—that is 15 per cent. It is interesting that, of the 15 per cent. that have been sold, only 1.8 per cent. were flats. All the rest were dwellings. Only 60 out of the 3,370 units of acommodation sold were flats. It is also interesting that 28 per cent. of the flats that were sold were in Bootle. No one wants to buy a flat in Bootle because flats are not worth buying there. Some 1,560 of the 3,370 dwellings that have been sold‡46 per cent. of all sales—are in Bootle. When one realises that 75 per cent. of all the dwellings are in Bootle, that seems a small percentage.

It is the better houses in the lush areas and the gin-and-tonic belts of Crosby and Southport that are being sold. Families on the waiting list in Bootle, people in housing need and those with children seeking transfers out of the flats of Bootle cannot move into accommodation in Crosby, Southport and Formby because it is being sold. On the other hand, Sefton council can make sure that those living in the council accommodation in Southport and Crosby, whom they call problem families, are transferred to the accommodation in Bootle that is not being sold, to exacerbate the problems of Bootle.

Exactly the same thing will happen with the housing association accommodation too, so it is important that there should be a continued debate on the Bill. Those in housing need in Bootle and the rest of Sefton are entirely dependent upon the housing associations at the moment, because the local authority does so little. Only the housing associations are building, acquiring and improving—within the limits of the allocations that they receive through the Housing Corporation, which have been cut.

If that accommodation is sold off in the same way, what hope will there be for the young couple living with their in-laws? What hope will there be for those in the private rented sector in my constituency, which the Government have been trying to revitalise? Those living in properties that lack basic amenities and that the private landlord will not improve cannot take effective action because the council will not help them, and they do not even know who their landlords are. What about those with children, living in flats, who want transfers to the houses that are being sold? Their only hope at present is an offer of rented accommodation from a housing association, and that possibility will be attacked by this legislation. The Bill needs full and adequate debate and should not be guillotined.

The reason why the Government have introduced this legislation, and why they want to guillotine it, is that they want to finish what they started when they took power. They want to implement free market, private sector policies in housing as elsewhere. They even want to privatise checking in the private sector—the process of making sure that what has been done is safe and adequate. That is what is proposed in the last part of the Bill, which would privatise the building regulations.

That is the height of folly. If there is no full debate and the Bill is not changed, the Government will live to regret its consequences. When people have died in a future catastrophe which happened because the local authorities were no longer involved in making sure, through the building regulations, that everything was done properly, people will ask which Minister and which Government were responsible. I would not like to carry that responsibility.

That piece of privatisation is very misguided. Even the most extreme Conservatives must agree that in some areas the public sector must exist to safeguard and assist the private sector. If they do not believe that, we are on a short road to disaster. To avoid that disaster, and to avoid increasing the misery of those in housing need and those living in council and housing association accommodation, I oppose this guillotine.

8.9 pm

Mr. Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet)

I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts), although I find it difficult to follow either the logic or the relevance of his contribution. I agree with him, however, that the Bill is of fundamental importance. I hope, therefore, that he will be a regular attender for the remainder of our proceedings. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to display his prejudices, as doubtless we all do, but it was wrong for him at the end of his speech to ascribe to us motives and policies that are utterly wrong. What he said is simply not true.

I have immense regard for the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin). I shall never describe him as an old Member, but I shall always describe him as a very experienced Member. He speech was both ingenious and ingenuous. I congratulate him on his ingenuity in finding new reasons and ideas to bring to this timetable debate. It was matched only by that of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House who sought to give yet another version of the reasons why the timetable motion should be accepted.

I wish to take up two points made by the right hon. Member for Deptford, one very minor and one more serious. The right hon. Gentleman gave the impression that only parts I and II of the Bill were important. To me, part III is also extremely important in providing the possibility for changing the scope and form of the building regulations.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the more serious matter of corruption. He certainly implied that there would be greater scope for corruption if the system of approved inspectors came into being. With respect, I believe—I choose my words carefully here—that there is just as great an opportunity for corruption in the public services of our country as there might be in what he would describe as the private sector. It is important to put that on record.

We can all play around with statistics. We have been told that we have already debated the Bill for more than 90 hours in 25 sittings of the Standing Committee, taken up more than 1,000 columns of Hansard but got only halfway through the Bill. To me, those statistics are themselves compelling reasons to support the timetable motion.

I wish to refer, too, to the reality of the Committee proceedings. I concede at once that if Conservative Members were in opposition, they might be guilty of the same behaviour, but that is hypothetical and academic. The fact remains that the points made by the Opposition could have been made in a tithe of the time that they actually took. I cite one more statistic—we have already spent more than 20 hours on three clauses in part II.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne), in his excellent contribution, referred to the ritual of our proceedings. One might use other words and call it a pantomime or a farce. I disagree with my hon. Friend in just one respect. He said that Conservative Members were encouraged to be silent. I am sure that that is true, but my hon. Friend will be the first to congratulate Conservative Back Benchers on not remaining silent but making relevant contributions. It may be coincidence—I prefer to think that it was, although the more I think about it the more I wonder—that three days after my first, modest 10-minute contribution on part I of the Bill, the Government Whip trapped my fingers in his car door. I am endeavouring to effect a speedy recovery.

It should be placed clearly on record that the hon. Members for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) and Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor) have made excellent and articulate contributions in Committee, as did my hon. Friends the Minister for Housing and Construction and the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, although the Opposition speeches might on occasion have been rather more concise. In case any hon. Member tries to pick me up on this, I should state that I have taken only 20 columns of the 1,000 columns of Hansard, and one third of that was occupied quite properly in answering interventions from Opposition Members.

My main point is that, as a result of this motion, four fifths of our time will have been spent on half the Bill. That is the reality of the matter, and it is a sad reflection on our procedure. I add a further dimension to what my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South said. I am concerned about what members of the public who observed our proceedings in Committee may have thought about the standard of some of the contributions. I believe that the present system is in danger of bringing this wonderful institution into contempt. Frankly, I fear for the reputation of Parliament. I believe that the way in which we sometimes proceed in Committee could bring democracy into disrepute. We should consider that dimension when we reflect on the Select Committee report of five years ago and the four reasons eloquently expounded by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for not having a timetable for all Bills.

We are fast reaching the time when we should find reasons for overcoming the four obstacles set out in the Select Committee report instead of accepting them at face value. I implore Ministers to consider that seriously. I suspect that only when a party is in opposition can it take the initiative in bringing a timetable system into our proceedings, and I fear, in that sense, it will be a very long time before we have that opportunity. Nevertheless, I very much hope that there will be all-party discussions on this. It is a matter not just of defending democracy, although I believe that democracy can be safeguarded adequately even with a timetable system for Bills in Committee, but of reassuring the public that every Bill is considered at leisure, properly and adequately by Members.

8.17 pm
Mr. John Cartwright (Woolwich, East)

I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) said at the end of his speech and with much of what was said earlier by the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne). Our timetabling system is becoming a farce. There is usually a great deal of synthetic indignation in these debates. Charges and counter-charges are lobbed back and forth, usually between Front Benches whose members have all in their time guillotined Bills and fought to the last ditch against the guillotining of Bills. The argument tends to be, "Our guillotines are not so bad as yours," which scarcely makes for an edifying debate. Another frequent feature of timetable debates is that they are often a rehash of Second Reading debates, when hon. Members dust off and recycle their Second Reading speeches for the benefit of their local newspapers. There has already been one example of that today.

I believe that the House is becoming bored with that kind of performance. If proof is required, one has only to look around the Chamber. With the exception of perhaps one hon. Member on each side, the only Members in the Chamber are the members of the Standing Committee debating with one another all over again. I strongly agree with those who say that it is about time we found a better way to handle this procedure.

Having said all that, however, I believe that this Bill is an extraordinary candidate for a timetable motion. I accept that it is important and has some controversial elements, but it is hardly the centrepiece of the Government's legislative programme. It is a rather disparate collection of detailed odds and ends. In housing terms it is a mixture of the good, the bad and the irrelevant. A great deal of it is highly technical. The point was made at the Committee's first sitting that it was an ideal Bill for the Select Committee procedure. It would have been interesting to hear the charitable housing associations explain what would happen to their activities as a result of clause 2.

I should have listened with great interest to local authority representatives and officers spelling out what shared ownership would mean for them practically. I might have learnt something if we had had professional bodies and expert practitioners in the subject commenting upon the proposals for changes in the building control mechanisms. It is a pity that the usual channels did not arrange matters in such a way that the taking of evidence under the Select Committee procedure could have begun our work in Committee.

As I understand it, the Government's case for the timetable motion seems to rest on the argument that there has been deliberate time wasting in Committee. As the sole representative of the minority parties on the Committee, I have no particular axe to grind between one side and the other. I do not believe that the charge of time wasting can be made out. However, I concede straight away that when we were debating part I the Opposition were stretched fairly thinly and I accept that the arguments were sometimes extended to cover the maximum time possible and that on occasions the ratio of solid, relevant argument to the number of words used was fairly low.

It is a pleasure always to listen to my former hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham). I have been doing so in one arena after another for about 20 years. I felt occasionally that one could have a little too much of a good thing in Committee. I must pay tribute to his superhuman efforts in Committee, not just in his contributions, which have always been stimulating, but in his ability to keep his hon. Friends going when their ingenuity or inventiveness and occasionally their stamina showed signs of flagging. If that is the allegation of time wasting, I have seen a great deal worse in my eight years in Committees dealing with Bills that were not subject to a timetable motion.

It is fair to say, as has been said already by the Opposition, that in part I we are talking about serious political issues. I do not necessarily share Labour Members' strong feelings about the extension of the right to buy in the council sector provided by part II. I am glad to see the loopholes, which have been exploited by a number of councils, blocked. I do not share the opposition in principle of Labour Members to the extension of shared ownership. However, I recognise their strong feelings.

Clause 2, which provides for the extension of the right to buy to tenants of charitable housing associations, is something that the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) has said raises strong feelings right across the political spectrum, not just among Labour Members or Members of the alliance, but among those of other political persuasions. Opposition to that proposal has been made absolutely clear by the volume of correspondence that has showered upon every member of the Committee. Given that strength of feeling, it was perfectly understandable that part I was fiercely contested and absorbed a great deal of time.

We have moved to part II, which is the rather more technical part of the Bill, and there has been some improvement in progress. There has been a greater involvement by Government Back Benchers, which I welcome, because they bring a great deal of technical expertise to this part of the Bill. They are improving the examination of the Bill in Committee.

It would have been perfectly possible, without a timetable motion, but with a reasonable amount of good will on both sides, to have had adequate discussions and to have completed the Committee stage by early March. I do not believe that the Government's case for the timetable motion has been made out. There have been occasions when the Government have apparently been perfectly relaxed and have let the clock run on to justify the timetable motion on the basis of the number of hours taken up in Committee. The trundling out of the guillotine is out of proportion both to the importance of the Bill and to the events in Committee. I therefore cannot support the timetable motion.

Equally, I cannot vote against the timetable motion, because I think that reasonable time has been allocated for the work that the Committee has left. It is interesting to note that the time that has been fixed in the timetable motion is a deadline that was being informally bandied about in Committee fairly recently. It would have been possible to reach such an agreement without the use of a timetable motion. It is interesting to note that the two old parties always come to a friendly agreement when their interests are at stake.

The allocation of one day only on Report is a trifle mean, but I notice that it is to continue for one hour after midnight, which is equivalent to one and a half days. That is something to which we cannot object. However, it means that we are up late at night or early in the morning. I suspect that once again it will be the members of the Committee who will be debating at one o'clock in the morning, or whenever it comes.

I believe that there is another argument for abstention. I am sorry that the Minister is enjoying my speech so much. If he enjoys it that much before I have developed my argument, he might enjoy it more after I have developed it. There is a case for abstaining on this and other timetable motions. I believe that that is the only way to draw attention to the need for change in the way in which we go about such matters. It is all very well for Conservative Members to make interesting speeches, with which I agree, about the need to change things, but all the time that they or Opposition Members continue to suffer the tyranny of the Whips—whether or not they trap their fingers in doors—and continue to vote for or against timetable motions, the procedure will continue.

A positive abstention will draw attention to the need to change—[HON. MEMBERS: "A positive abstention?"] It is a positive abstention, because it is a rejection of the introduction of timetable motions. Hon. Members may laugh, but they will vote tonight for something that they have already said is wrong, farcical and, in certain circumstances, dangerous. I shall take no part in that procedure. The sooner that we can do something to change our approach to timetable motions, the better it will be for the efficient operation of the House and for the standing of this House in the country.

8.29 pm
Mr. John Heddle (Lichfield and Tamworth)

I shall not attempt to pursue the path of irrelevance and contradiction followed by the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright). Positive abstention is rather like travelling round the country stirring up apathy.

The Committee proceedings and, to an extent, some of the contributions in tonight's short debate can be divided into two categories—dogma and detail. Much of the dogma expounded by the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) can only be described as mongrel dogma, and the detail is born of misunderstanding and misappreciation of the factors at work in council offices and in the private sector. I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) and for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) that this Bill was an ideal candidate for prior consultation. I should not say "consultation" because my hon. Friend the Minister of State and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State consulted comprehensively and extensively about the building control procedure. However, the Committee would have been much better informed and—to use the words of a judge—very much the wiser had we had an opportunity to cross-examine members of charitable housing associations. They, too, would have been better informed and possibly wiser about the Government's intentions. Had that process taken place before the Committee sat formally, perhaps some of the misunderstandings and misconceptions that remain in the minds of those who perform the magnificent, unpaid and unsung service of providing accommodation for those in desperate need, would have been eliminated.

Only yesterday evening, when I made a brief speech in Committee on points that were answered comprehensively by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State about unlimited liability and time-limited liability, the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham)—I endorse the tributes paid to him by the hon. Member for Woolwich, East—suggested that my contribution was getting perilously close to an agreement. There is much in this Bill upon which all parties should agree not in peril but by common consent, because we were all elected to the House to serve the interests of our constituents, the majority of whom share our aims and aspirations.

If one meets a Marxist in a public bar and one buys him two pints, he will admit that the one thing that he would really love would be for his son or daughter to win a scholarship to the local grammar school. Yet, at election after election, he will troop through the polling booths and put a cross against the name of the representative of the party that will never allow him to send his son or daughter to a grammar school. After he has consumed two more pints at one's expense, that Marxist will admit that the one thing that he and his wife would really love would be the opportunity to own whole or part of their home and so to climb the ladder of independence and self-sufficiency that home ownership provides. This Bill will enable him to do that.

Mr. Bob Dunn (Dartford)

During one debate in Committee, Opposition Members said that the sale of council houses was a social evil. How does my hon. Friend believe that Opposition Members would describe members of the Labour party who have bought their council homes?

Mr. Heddle

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. He anticipated a remark that I would have made, and I am glad that he has brought it to my attention now. The hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) said—Opposition Members can examine the verbatim record—that home ownership was a social evil. The hon. Member for Edmonton, and the hon. Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean) did not say that. They were not opposed to the sale of council houses, and they welcomed the opportunity for their constituents to own their own properties. However, they would not condemn or condone local authorities that made it difficult for people to buy their own houses.

Mr. Graham

The words that the hon. Member ascribed to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) must undoubtedly be true. I accept them completely.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept the context in which they were said by my hon. Friend? My hon. Friend served in high office in his local authority, grappling with the problems of the damage done to his ability to serve his electorate by virtue of the right-to-buy provisions. When a Member of Parliament can see the other side of the coin—the damage to his ability to serve his constituents—I believe he has a duty to the House to put both sides of the argument.

Mr. Heddle

I appreciate what the hon. Member has said. This is where party political dogma arises. The hon. Member for Manchester, Central and all other Labour Members, with one or two notable exceptions, now serving on the Standing Committee were members of the Manchester city council. Some were chairmen of the housing committee from time to time. That is as close to a parliamentary closed shop as I have ever come.

Party political dogma has played an unfortunate and unnecessary part in the proceedings of this Standing Committee. I quote two lines from the Labour manifesto in the May 1979 election. Under the subject heading "Homes for All", it says: We reject the philosophy that tenants are second-class citizens". It goes on: Labour does not oppose the sale of council houses to sitting tenants of two years' standing who want to buy, so long as such sales are at a fair price". During my brief service in the House I have been frustrated by the party political shadow boxing and sabre rattling that goes on in the Chamber, compared with the agreement, mutuality of thought, understanding and respect that each party has for the other elsewhere.

Some of the measures in the Bill—I refer specifically to the shared purchase provisions in part II—actually meet the aims and aspirations of the majority of the electorate. Did I not think that that was so, I would not lend my support to the Bill in principle or in detail, because 500,000 former council tenants have exercised their right to buy—some more quickly than others—since the passing of the Housing Act 1980. The hon. Member for Bootle devoted the majority of his speech this evening to that subject and not to the Bill. Of those 500,000, a considerable number had the good fortune to have their right-to-buy applications processed reasonably speedily, moderately expeditiously and fairly efficiently.

The Act assists many more people who wish to exercise their right to buy and so introduce into their lives that independence, self-sufficiency and pride that home ownership brings. It contains powers to enable the Secretary of State to ensure that the local authorities process these applications speedily, expeditiously and efficiently.

The Bill goes further. Some local authorities have felt that they can deny their tenants the opportunity of exercising their democratic right of home ownership by imposing onerous restrictions and burdensome restrictive covenants. That is a daunting prospect for any of us, let alone those who are dipping their toes into the deep blue sea of home ownership, which contains some technical and detailed procedures in the early stages.

The Bill seeks to ensure that the democratic rights of those people are preserved and that the strong and impersonal arm of local authority democracy is not allowed to get the better of them. I welcome that provision as enthusiastically as the provision to ensure that people who cannot afford to buy the whole of their home now—at the fair price to which the Labour party referred in its manifesto commitment—can buy just a proportion by way of shared ownership. Initially, they will be able to buy 50 per cent., but they will be able to climb the ladder of home ownership and opportunity by increasing the proportion subsequently by 12½ per cent. until ultimately they own 100 per cent. A close examination of the schedules to the Bill will reveal that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reserves powers subsequently to vary that ratio by order.

The hon. Member for Bootle raised a red herring when discussing the relationship between subsidy by way of mortgage interest relief and direct subsidy by way of local authority ownership. I do not wish to dwell on that point, because it is not relevant to the timetable motion. However, the hon. Gentleman suffered from selective parliamentary amnesia by failing to remind the House that the Government have significantly increased the amount that council tenants obtain through rent subsidies and supplementary benefits. Indeed, four or five out of every 10 council tenants now receive significantly more generous rent subsidies than they did during the period of the last Administration.

The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) and my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet referred to the fact that enabling the public to have building work certified by the qualified and approved private sector, could be a charter for corruption. The right hon. Gentleman does himself and his profession of the law a great disservice by presuming that chartered civil engineers, chartered structural engineers, chartered surveyors, chartered architects and those who can obtain approval to practise independently, as part of a partnership or as employees within a partnership, can be open to corruption. They can no more be open to the charge of corruption than can building control officers currently employed by local authorities, and I yield to no one in my respect for the professionalism and integrity of building control officers currently employed in the public sector.

The public might be better served if some of those building control officers were employed in the private sector. Certainly my constituent who happens to own 47 Lonsdale road, Radford, Nottingham would be much better served. He drew this matter to my attention only a fortnight ago at my advice bureau in Lichfield. He told me that he owned a house which he wished to let on a shorthold. He wished to provide an opportunity for someone who was no doubt on the Nottingham city council's housing waiting list to rent a home of his own, but before he could do so he would have to obtain an improvement grant to provide that house with the basic essential amenities. The chief executive of the Nottingham city council told the architect whom my constituent had instructed to prepare plans and a specification for the improvement of this three-bedroomed, two-storey dwelling that it would take six months for the application to go through the building regulation approval process.

It was nothing to do with the financial implications or with the consideration of the application by the finance committee of the city council; it was that they did not have the opportunity, because of the number of applications which the city was currently processing—all tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and to the Department of the Environment for making home improvement grants so attractive and so widely available, thus enabling the construction industry in Nottingham and in my constituency of Lichfield and Tamworth to be stimulated—

Mr. Graham

Does not the hon. Member also appreciate that one of the problems for councils in 1983 in trying to deal with work of that kind arises because for the past three years the Secretary of State has badgered and bashed them to reduce the number of their employees, not only throughout their establishments but in this kind of department in particular? Is it not unfair to a council which has been under pressure from all directions, not least from a reduction in the rate support grant, to reduce the number of employees who are able and available to process these applications?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)

Order. I hope the hon. Member will try to relate his constituent's case to the motion that we are discussing.

Mr. Heddle

I am grateful for your sound advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am open to the charge of not explaining myself to the House as well as I might but I had thought I was illustrating my constituent's case in this context. I take your point and will not therefore be persuaded to follow the path that the hon. Member for Edmonton has plotted for me. I will simply say that, if the provisions of this Bill are subsequently enacted, as is likely to happen more quickly after this motion has been approved tonight, the opportunity will be given to Nottingham city council to pass the building control procedures into the private sector where they will be handled by reputable chartered architects, surveyors, civil engineers or structural engineers, thus relieving the council of the responsibility of processing that application within the six months that it has set itself. My constituent's house will be put into habitable and comfortable condition much sooner, which will in turn benefit the person on the Nottingham council house waiting list.

The public will also be better protected if this motion is passed and the Bill subsequently enacted, because the building control officer, if employed in the private sector, will be subject not only to the rigorous scrutiny of the local authority whose ultimate duty it is to ensure that all buildings are constructed in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by it initially in outline and subsequently in detail, but, if there is any question of corruption, of negligence or of diminution of professional standards, that the approved building control officer will be subject to the disciplinary proceeding of his own professional body or institution. The majority of constituent bodies and institutions which I suspect will receive the advantage of my right hon. Friend's approval will be incorporated by royal charter and their standards will be at least as rigorous, as far as the conduct of their members is concerned, as are those of the body to whom the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Deptford is accountable for his conduct if he seeks to practise his profession in the courts.

I have detained the House for long enough. In doing so I have sought to bring both sides of this Chamber together. I hope I have persuaded Labour Members that we are not motivated, in seeking to speed the Bill on its way, by petty party political dogma and that what we are doing is seeking to extend the right to buy to as many people as possible, to spread the wealth of this country into as many hands, as many pockets, and as many purses as possible.

I recall the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) saying much the same. People can only take a pride in their home and environment and identify closely with their family and the condition of their family when they have the security that surrounds them day by day—their own front door, their carefully tended garden and their own home. The Bill seeks to do just that. The people, the country, and, most certainly, the local authorities upon whose shoulders the responsibility for providing homes would rest if people were not able to have the opportunity to house themselves, will all benefit. I support the motion wholeheartedly and ultimately wish the Bill godspeed.

8.50 pm
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)

All that the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) and I have in common is that, unlike the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright), we shall not be positively abstaining tonight. That was the explanation given by the hon. Member for Woolwich, East for not voting in either Division Lobby.

I wish to refer to some of the comments that have been made about timetable motions. As an Opposition Member, I am not keen on the idea of agreeing to a timetable following Second Reading. [Interruption.] I realise that the Government Whip likes to intervene in these matters, but I shall wait to see whether the enthusiasm for a timetable persists when those advocating it are in opposition. I do not agree that the Standing Committee procedure is the best in the world and that it cannot be improved. However, the kind of solution that has been proposed is not likely to help. It will certainly not help the Opposition. The possibility of achieving all-party agreement for such a proposal seems remote.

The Opposition agreed at the start of the Committee stage that there was a case for a Special Standing Committee. The Procedure Committee thought that such a Special Standing Committee could be used for hearing and examining witnesses. Opposition Members took the view that it would be appropriate to institute the procedure on a Bill such as that now before the House to enable hon. Members to hear witnesses from the charitable housing associations, which are most affected by part I of the Bill, explain why they objected so strongly to the Bill's proposals. Hon. Members have not received a single letter from charitable housing associations stating that they are in favour of the part of the Bill that provides the tenants of the associations with the right to buy. It would, therefore, be right to hear representatives of the charitable housing associations give their reasons for being so strongly against the Bill.

Mr. Graham

Is it not right that the Committee heard extracts from letters by some tenants who were in favour of and others who were against clause 2? But were not the representations received by hon. Members from the associations themselves unanimously against the provisions of clause 2?

Mr. Winnick

Indeed. I shall return to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth about tenants.

We also pointed out that it would do no harm to have a Law Officer present, bearing in mind the position of charities and the fact that charity law is extremely complex. When the Bill receives its Third Reading in the House, it will not be the end of the matter by any means. The rumour is that much opposition is gathering in another place, certainly about the position of charitable housing associations.

Charitable housing associations have in good faith received assistance from successive Governments since 1974. Now they find that, as a result of receiving that assistance, they will be forced to take measures that they believe to be against the interests of their associations. The associations exist for one purpose only—to provide accommodation for those most in need. Indeed, the Minister for Housing and Construction explained to the Committee the stringent conditions that should be met before anyone is housed by a charitable association. It is understandable that those who have devoted time and energy over a long period to the provision of accommodation for people most in need—in many circumstances, those who cannot be housed by local authorities—should be concerned and angry about what is intended by the Government.

Among the other letters that we received was one from the Salvation Army housing association, which is hardly what one would describe as a Left-wing organisation. In that letter the chairman of the association said: My association is actively considering branching out to provide, for example, permanent housing for resettled hostel residents and for poorer younger couples entering their first married homes. We all agree that that is an excellent objective. The letter continues: The Housing and Building Control Bill as presently drafted will almost certainly bring to an end these plans for new initiatives in our future work. I felt that you should be aware of this discouraging effect of the Bill as you further consider its provisions. We do not see it as our function to provide homes for sale at discount prices. Some Government Back Benchers have suggested that our criticism and opposition are motivated by party dogma.

Mr. Bob Dunn

Yes.

Mr. Winnick

The hon. Gentleman says "Yes". Let us take the views, for example, of the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd). I have given notice to the hon. Gentleman that I intended to quote what he said in the House on 13 December. He pointed out that he had family connections with the Guinness Trust, which is very much opposed to the Government's proposals. Referring to a letter which he had received from the director of the trust, he said: The indignation expressed in the director's letter is surprising and persuasive, coming as it does from someone who has spent many years of his life quietly helping to provide good housing cheaply for others. The Government's decision to affect charitable housing associations in the way provided by the Bill is likely to lead bodies such as the Guinness Trust seriously to consider whether they should ever accept Government funds to supplement their own funds in paying for housing for poor people."—[Official Report, 13 December 1982; Vol. 34. c. 53.] Is that Labour party dogma? The hon. Gentleman concluded by urging the Government to be careful about going quite so far down the road as they intended and warned of the difficulties. I do not know what the hon.

Gentleman intends to do tonight about the guillotine motion. This illustrates that the idea that the objections come purely and simply from the Labour party or that this is Labour party dogma at its worst does not bear scrutiny.

Why are literally all the housing associations affected by the measure opposed to it? The explanation is clear. They know the immense harm that will be done to their activities as a result of what is being discussed today.

The hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth often lectures us on the need for people to become home owners. Today, he said that it would be good for people to own their own homes. Indeed, he referred to buying pints of beer for Marxists. I am not an authority on the Marxist views of education and so on, but I imagine that the hon. Gentleman has never met a Marxist.

Mr. Heddle

They are usually on the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Winnick

Such remarks illustrate once again the political illiteracy of Conservative Members. In their eyes, anyone connected with the Labour movement must be terribly Left-wing, dogmatic and subversive. Conservative Members have not changed their spots at all over the years.

Like the Minister, the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth seems to think that it is almost a fundamental right that tenants should be able to buy their own accommodation. However, if it is all right for council tenants and the tenants of charitable housing associations to buy, why should not private tenants, who are never mentioned by Conservative Members, buy their homes? It is interesting that the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth has never for a moment suggested that he would be in favour of a law giving private tenants the right to buy.

Many tenants in the private sector have to put up with bad conditions. I do not suggest that the majority of private landlords are unscrupulous, but many private landlords and property companies act in an unfortunate and unscrupulous manner. That was said in Committee, and we gave illustrations from the Liverpool area. No matter how unscrupulous their landlords may be, those tenants will not have the right to buy. But the Government and their Back Benchers say that the tenants of local authorities and charitable housing associations should have that right.

It would be a slander to suggest that the Labour party has ever been against owner-occupation. We are in favour of people being in a position to buy their own houses. That is why, in the 1960s, a Labour Government introduced the option mortgage scheme. It was a means, perhaps limited, of providing for those who would otherwise have difficulty in obtaining a mortgage.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks to the motion.

Mr. Winnick

I am grateful for that guidance, but the motion says that the Bill should be guillotined and this point relates to the Bill.

As a result of the guillotine, there will be insufficient time to examine the clauses that have already seen published. In addition, there are new clauses which will make it all the more difficult for the Bill to be properly scrutinised in Committee. Of course, the new clauses tabled by the Minister are controversial. In the normal course of events, they would be properly scrutinised and examined, but, as a result of the guillotine, there will be less time available to examine them. If we had more time, we could examine again the question of private tenants and the right of people to buy their own accommodation.

We reject any accusation that we are against owner-occupation. In vain, we urged the Government to take the initiative in dealing with those in acute housing difficulties. For example, in Walsall there are nearly 15,000 people on the waiting list. People are waiting a long time to be rehoused, particularly in urban areas.

The Government do not understand that, while many people will undoubtedly solve their housing problems by owner-occupation, there remain many whose only opportunity of obtaining adequate accommodation is by renting. If they cannot rent from the local authority because of the Government's policy since 1979, they must go to the charitable housing associations. Those associations will be adversely affected by this measure. The Government are doing a grave disservice to those about whom we should be especially concerned.

Mr. Graham

It is not only the charitable housing associations that will have to soldier on and carry out their responsibilities. This measure is against the advice of the Charity Commission. Is it not a disgrace that, despite attempts by the Opposition, the Government have refused to allow a Law Officer to attend the Committee? The Government may land themselves in legal difficulties later.

Mr. Winnick

I have already referred to our request for a Law Officer.

When the Bill reaches another place, there will be many questions and comments about charity law and the manner in which the Government intend to take action against charitable housing associations. Many people will be surprised that a Conservative Government can turn upon charitable housing associations. The Government may argue that they are not doing so, but that is not the view of the associations that have written to us.

As was stated on Second Reading, this is a bad measure. It will do no good for those about whom we should be most concerned who need adequate accommodation to rent. The Government are determined to go ahead with the measure. It is what we would expect from a Government who base their housing policy on dogma and who believe that council housing should be for the benefit of only the poorest in the community. They will not accept the Opposition's view, which has been accepted by successive Conservative Governments, that council housing has an important role to play, as have charitable housing associations.

I shall be happy to vote against the motion tonight.

9.7 pm

Mr. Bob Dunn (Dartford)

I am pleased to speak in favour of the motion, having sat on the Standing Committee for more than 90 hours, through 25 sittings, and having heard the words of both sides of the Committee, which are reflected in more than 1,000 columns in Hansard. It is right to proceed to a timetable.

I am in favour of the motion, not simply because I object to the ritual of debate, the dragging on of time and the interventions in speeches—the constant referral from one Opposition Member to another simply to keep the words flowing to use up time—but because it is right that Conservative Members should press for the enactment of the legislation at the earliest opportunity. We have a duty and a responsibility to those who are waiting to buy their homes in such places as Southwark, Dulwich and Bolton, West.

I was pleased when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House quoted my question to the Prime Minister on 11 February 1982. I asked: Will my right hon. Friend say whether it is the Government's intention to introduce legislation that would give council tenants living in leasehold properties owned by local authorities the right to buy their council homes? My right hon. Friend replied: I am well aware that our pledge at the general election covered those living in leasehold properties belonging to local authorities who wish to buy their homes, but where the local authority does not possess the freehold. Our last legislation did not cover that case. It should be covered. It is our intention to cover it. We have a high priority to do so. I cannot promise my hon. Friend that there will be legislation during this Session of Parliament. However, if not, we shall try in the next Session."—[Official Report, 11 February 1982; Vol.17, c. 1110–11] I am pleased to say that my right hon. Friend's words have been supported and honoured by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction.

I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for taking on board many of the representations that I have received from hundreds of council tenants outside my constituency. He received them with tact and concern, and I am pleased to note that this has led, ultimately, to the legislative enactment that we are discussing in the form of the motion.

The shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) referred to the timetable and said that he saw no reason why we should not continue for a little longer, in all reasonableness, before enacting the provisions. The hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) said that he saw no reason why the Committee stage should not be completed early in March. However, the truth was given by the right hon. Member for Deptford when he said that the Committee stage could be finished some time in April. It would always be some other time, or some other reason for delaying a little longer, perhaps until June, or July, or later.

Many thousands of people who are living in the conditions to which I have referred would be angry if they thought that the provisions giving them the right to buy their homes were not to be enacted by the Government of which I am a strong and proud supporter. The problem for the Opposition is that they are opposed to the sale of public sector houses. The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor) said in November: I am happy to tell the House that we are committed to the repeal of the right to buy." [Official Report, 23 November 1982; Vol. 32, c. 730.] That was also said by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) in a debate in 1980.

The House will be interested to note that 1,000 of my constituents have taken advantage of the right to buy. That represents 14 per cent. of the housing stock, and, as those who are members of the Committee will know, because I have told them so, it is one of the best results in the south-east region.

The Conservative party believes that the right to buy should fall upon the individual. The Labour party believes that it should fall upon the institution. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said in Committee that account should be taken of the housing needs of the local authority. He has made that point on many occasions, but I cannot believe that the boroughs of Islington, Camden, Manchester, Salford or Southwark will ever accept that the time has come when houses should be sold to council tenants.

According to The Standard, in the by-election in Bermondsey there appears to be a choice, between Mr. O'Grady and Mr. Tatchell. In his time Mr. O'Grady was responsible for ensuring that 95 per cent. of all the houses in the Bermondsey constituency were owned by the council. Mr. Tatchell would like to see 100 per cent. of the housing in the Bermondsey constituency owned by the authority. That is, apparently, a choice.

I pay tribute to the hon. Members for Bolton, West and for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) for the way in which they have conducted themselves in the debate. I know that this has not been easy and that they have had a difficult case to present. They spun out the time and behaved responsibly, unlike members of their parliamentary bruising team behind them. However, there is a great divide in the Labour party on owner-occupation. I am sure that Labour Members will be pleased to know that, as a result of the right-to-buy legislation, 67 per cent. of all houses in my constituency are now owned by the people who live in them. I shall be happy when that figure increases to 70 per cent. or perhaps 75 per cent.

Revealing and apposite comments have been made by Labour Members. The hon. Member for Bolton, West said in November 1982 that if the Labour party was called upon to form a Government, that Administration would repeal the right-to-buy legislation. The hon. Lady was being honest, in the same way as the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), who visited my constituency and said that a Labour Government would abolish choice in education and force the area to introduce the comprehensive system.

I shall be telling my constituents about those two planks of Labour party policy. I hope that more of its policies will be revealed to me in the next few months so that I can tell my constituents even more about the aspirations of the Labour party. Those aspirations are not being revealed to my constituents by local members of the Labour party. They keep quiet about these embarrassments. I do not intend to go further down that road, because if I did I would surely be called to order.

In February 1982 I was pleased to refer my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the position of tenants living in leasehold properties. I believe that the Bill will stand with the 1980 Act as a major piece of reforming legislation. It will give people the right to choose. We are setting the people free. This has always been a strong tenet of the Conservative party. I hope that we shall continue to implement it. I have great pleasure in supporting the motion.

Mr. Winnick

The hon. Gentleman talks about setting people free, whatever that might mean. I am sure that he wants to be consistent in his approach. Does he believe that tenants in the private sector should have exactly the same rights as he is advocating for those in the public sector and in housing association properties?

Mr. Dunn

I take on board the hon. Gentleman's question, which he has raised many times in Committee. I am concerned about the future of the private tenant. I am concerned that the private sector diminished in my constituency from 15 to 10 per cent. between 1972 and 1982.

Mr. Winnick

Should they have the right to buy?

Mr. Dunn

The object of the debate is to establish whether the guillotine should fall on consideration of the Bill in Committee. We have reached the end of a difficult road in the Committee on which the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) serves.

Mr. Winnick

Should they have the right to buy?

Mr. Dunn

We must now consider the remaining clauses, which relate to other areas of housing.

Mr. Winnick

Answer the question!

Mr. Heddle

rose—

Mr. Dunn

I give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Heddle

The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), to whose intervention my hon. Friend is currently replying, tried to trawl the red herring, if I am not mixing too many metaphors, of the relationship between the public sector tenant and the private sector tenant and his right to buy or otherwise. Does my hon. Friend agree that the private sector tenant has the right to compel his landlord to carry out certain necessary repairs? The private sector tenant has the statutory power, for example under the Public Health Acts and the Housing Act 1980, to ensure that the landlord carries out certain repairs.

Mr. Winnick

What about the right to buy?

Mr. Heddle

That right to require repairs to be carried out does not exist in the public sector.

Mr. Winnick

But what about the right to buy?

Mr. Dunn

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. For four years I was a London borough of Southwark councillor. I was one of only four Conservatives on a council of 70. We were outnumbered by 17 to 1, but that proved that one Conservative was equal to 17 Socialists. In Southwark there was an appalling degree of household neglect. That was because the local authority's bureaucracy had been maintained and enhanced to such a degree that it was difficult for the average tenant to get through to those concerned the fact that he had a leaking roof, rising damp or a door that did not fit.

Mr. Winnick

Answer my question.

Mr. Dunn

The issues that we have discussed are bound to be of assistance to council tenants. The private tenant has the rights to which my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) has referred. Many enlightened landlords are trying to help tenants to buy their houses.

Mr. Winnick

What about the right to buy?

Mr. Dunn

There is a long way to go before we get to that point. Private landlords in my constituency—not many, because there are not many left as a result of the Opposition's legislation—are selling their houses to tenants at fair and reasonable prices. We have a long way to go before we reach the final point when as many people as can afford to do so own the house in which they live.

Mr. J. F. Pawsey (Rugby)

Before my hon. Friend finishes his speech I hope that he will find time to say a few words about the purchase of houses by tenants of housing association properties. He may not be aware of the fact that in my constituency there is at least one housing association that has deliberately thwarted the will of Parliament to such an extent that for two years tenants of that association have not been able to purchase the house in which they live. I believe that that is disgraceful. I should welcome my hon. Friend's views on the subject.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) will confine himself to the terms of the motion.

Mr. Dunn

Of course, I shall confine myself to the motion. I have been about to conclude several times, as you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I welcome the motion. I regret the need for it, but that has been brought about by several circumstances, not least of which is the ritualistic behaviour of the Opposition.

I endorse much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) said. The House must, at some time, take account and stock of the circumstances of hon. Members who serve on Standing Committees. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), the Government Whip, because at no time during the Standing Committee were we put under pressure by him, the Minister or the Under-Secretary of State to remain quiet. We have given as good as we got on occasions. That must be the right way. With regard to what my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South, said, I hope that Parliament will take account of this obvious abuse of our procedures.

9.21 pm
Mr. John Ward (Poole)

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) and an even greater pleasure to congratulate him on the progress that has been made in privatisation of dwellings in his constituency. Like him, I look forward to the day when 99 per cent. of Dartford is in owner-occupation.

I should also like to pay tribute to my neighbouring Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) who said that there was a need to re-examine our procedures in Standing Committees. Although I have every sympathy with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in all that he does to keep us from erring, I disagree with his comments about the possibility of another look at that procedure during this Parliament.

I belong to that no longer exclusive club that believes that all Bills need some form of timetable motion, if the House is to be seen to be discharging its duties properly, and if, above all, it is to be seen by the electorate not to be wasting time or using the rules of procedure to prolong our activities in Committee.

It seems to become a virility symbol to spend 90 or 100 hours in Committee, to have two or three all-night sittings, to have three or four cups of coffee at about 2 o'clock in the morning and then to have a guillotine. That is a ridiculous way of proceeding. If any state or private corporation behaved in the same way as we go about our business, we should question not only their wisdom but the sanity of their procedures. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will consider the matter further and note the number of signatures—now well over 100—to early-day motion 298.

Viscount Cranborne

It is always a pleasure to find that Dorset Members of Parliament are on the side of common sense and truth. I thank my hon. Friend for his comments in that respect. Would he also consider the effects upon Ministers of the Crown of the long night sessions by which, as my hon. Friend put it, they are trying to prove their virility or that of their supporters—probably both? Does he agree that they put the sound administration of the country at risk? We rely on them to preserve their good judgment for the following morning. If they have been up all night it is extremely difficult for them to do that.

Mr. Ward

I agree with my hon. Friend. That gives me an opportunity to pay my tribute to Ministers, particularly my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction, who maintained his good humour and courtesy and kept us all in good order throughout the inordinately long proceedings. It would be a shock to some members of the public if they realised the conditions in which the members of any Government are asked to make decisions. They have super jet lag because they have been in Committee late into the night. That is the wrong way to go about the country's business.

My constituents are becoming very concerned at the delays in the Bill. Many people living in leasehold accommodation want the chance to buy their house. There are others who cannot fully buy but are looking forward to shared ownership. Again I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for the advice that he has provided for Poole borough council, which is anxious to see the Bill on the statute book so that it can proceed with such sales. Potentially we are adding about 50,000 to 55,000 home owners to the list of owner-occupiers. The Opposition may call it dogma, but I believe that it is a good principle of the Conservative party that, at all times, we should do what we can to encourage home ownership.

The second half of the Bill has received less attention than the right-to-buy provisions. I welcome the introduction in the Bill of choice to the consumer by allowing private certification for building control. I hope that in due course the problem of certification will be alleviated by taking a good, long, cool look at the building regulations and, I hope, by separating the technical requirements from the building regulations proper, which have become immensely complicated. The regulations have become about three times as long as they were 10 years ago. I welcome the assurances that have been given that a close look will be taken at them.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) I pay tribute to building control officers, who do a conscientious job. I assure them that in no way is the Bill aimed at their quality or competence. Again the Bill provides the Conservative principle of choice for the consumer. I look forward very much to the streamlining of procedures that will be possible under the Bill.

I revert briefly to shared ownership and the right to buy. We should encourage pride in ownership, wherever it may be. What is better than the pride of owning one's own home? We can make the taxpayers' money available to support those in most need and not go on providing help to those who do not need it and are willing to commit their capital in the form of purchasing the house in which they live.

In the end it all comes down to providing a choice for the people. They do not have to buy the house in which they live. There is no pressure on them to do so. The success of the Minister's policy and the policies of the Government is shown by the fact that a vast number of people are queuing up to buy.

I hope that when the Minister replies he will lift the corner of the veil slightly and reassure us that councils attempting to frustrate the will of the Government will be brought into line. I hope that increasing pressure will be put on those councils to obey not only these measures but the previous right-to-buy legislation.

I hope that the House will pass the timetable motion tonight. The Bill is too important to be allowed to hang about in Committee any longer. I hope that it will shortly complete its Committee and remaining stages and become law.

9.31 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor (Bolton, West)

The Leader of the House and several Conservative Members have said that this is an important Bill. It is both important and complex. That is one of the reasons why Opposition Members believe that the Government are wrong to railroad the legislation through the House before we have had time to consider fully the implications of the proposed changes.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) has already pointed out that the Bill is really two Bills. Indeed, parts I and II are connected only by the unfortunate Minister who has seen fit to promote them. Part I is about housing matters, although not housing problems or housing needs. It will not build one new house or improve one old property. Part II is about building control, which is a completely different subject.

Such is the haste of the Government to push ahead with the legislation that not only do we have two Bills in one, but we have limited time in which to discuss the two separate parts of the legislation. Opposition Members serving on the Standing Committee have been dismayed by the Government's undue haste. Every attempt by us to do our job of carefully scrutinising the legislation has been frustrated by Ministers who, rather than deal with the questions asked and problems suggested by my hon. Friends, have chosen to give bland assurances that all will be well once the Bill becomes an Act.

It is clear that Ministers do not know how many of the provisions will operate in practice and have not worked out the details of the legislation. Yet tonight we face a guillotine motion.

It may have been lack of detailed knowledge that prompted the Government to use the closure procedure unduly to restrict discussion of important matters. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) quoted some statistics. I do not intend to quote many statistics, but the hon. Gentleman will remember that in one day alone the closure procedure was used five times in seven and a quarter hours of debate. That is an unprecedented restriction of the rights of Members of Parliament.

Mr. Chapman

Will the hon. Lady say on which amendments the closure was moved? That information might be relevant to her comments.

Mrs. Taylor

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recall that we were discussing the important and complex question of shared ownership. I remind him that those five closures were moved on a sitting day when the Committee made such rapid progress that we completed debates on five clauses and two schedules. If Conservative Members consider that we were slowing down the proceedings, they should remind themselves of what was happening in Committee at that time.

When so much progress was made in one day, I cannot see how the Government can justify the guillotine today. Certainly nothing that the Leader of the House said justified the motion.

It is not as though the Bill were a minor one. We all agree that it requires considerable attention and detailed scrutiny. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford said, we remain opposed to the Bill in principle. Nevertheless, in Committee we sought to highlight the many practical problems that may well arise. Every attempt that we made was ignored by the Minister, although he knows that there are serious difficulties associated with the working of the Bill in practice.

There are problems not least because the first part of the Bill goes back on the Government's decisions and assurances during the passage of the 1980 Bill. The same Minister said then that the right-to-buy provisions should not apply if the local authority did not own the freehold of the property because of the complexities and difficulties that would arise. Now, in this hastily produced package, he is introducing that which he previously rejected.

The same applies to housing charities. In 1980, in Committee the same Minister said: There are some important points to be made about the relationship between the right to buy and existing charity law. That is why the essential distinction that we have made is to extend the right to buy to those in the housing association sector who could reasonably fall under the general umbrella of public sector tenants. We take the view that that should not be extended if it conflicts with charitable law."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 29 January 1980; c. 14–15.] The Minister is now going back on all the assurances then given to housing charities and forcing them to dispose of their properties against their wishes, their better judgment their financial interests and their long-term objectives of providing help for people in housing need. Despite their assurances in 1980, the Government have broken their word and are now actually changing charity law through a housing Bill—and a guillotined one at that.

The Minister should be aware that serious consequences may result from that undue haste. We may see some of them in the very near future. The proposals may yet be the subject of legal action in the European Court. I do not think the Minister has fully considered the implications of his proposals in that respect. Moreover, I understand that the National Federation of Housing Associations and others have appealed to the Attorney-General. He is considering the case and the problems that will face housing charities as a result of the Bill. As part of his role, he is the officer of the Crown responsible for protecting the interests of charities, so he has a special interest in this. Indeed, I understand that his role in this respect gives him extra responsibility directly to the Crown rather than to the Government. It will be interesting to hear in due course what he has to say about the way in which the Bill affects charity law.

Therefore, even if the Government get their way today, we may not have heard the last of the matter as it affects charitable housing.

Part I of the Bill contains the Government's proposals for shared ownership. The Government now say that if a tenant cannot afford to buy his council house outright, perhaps he can buy half of it—or 62.5 per cent. or 75 per cent. or whatever other figure the Minister may decide at some later date. These proposals will create havoc for many local authorities and housing associations which are already under great pressure. If local authorities take on more staff to deal with these new problems, the Government will clobber them once again, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) said, for employing too many people.

The proposals for shared ownership, like the leasehold proposals and the changes for charitable housing trusts, have not been discussed with the people who will have to make them work in practice. That is one reason why the legislation is defective in a major way.

Part II of the Bill deals with the privatisation of building control. There is widespread speculation outside the House that, even if the legislation goes through, the provisions under part II will not be introduced.

Opposition Members have spoken again tonight of the need for revision of the building regulations. Members on both sides of the House agree with that. It is not the point at issue. The Opposition object to the privatisation of building control, the policing, the inspection and implementation of the building regulations. That is where we believe that the Government are treading on dangerous ground. The Opposition believe that part II, as it stands, needs far more consideration than the Government are willing to allow, not least because it gives the Secretary of State more power to change the present, uncriticised, tried and tested system of building control. In future the Secretary of State can, whenever and in whatever way he wishes, allow people, not identified, to undertake building control work. Yet the Secretary of State cannot guarantee that all the problems of liability can or ever will be clarified.

Mr. Graham

He never will.

Mrs. Taylor

The Minister undertook consultations. While everyone agrees that changes in the building regulations are necessary, none of the professional bodies or others outside the House supports what the Minister is doing. The Royal Institute of British Architects, the Institution of Structural Engineers, the Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Master Builders Federation are all opposed to what the Minister is doing, and the Government are now curtailing our opportunity to voice the fears of such esteemed and professional bodies. The Government will be in serious difficulty, once the measure comes into operation, if we have had no chance to explore fully the problems that might arise.

In Committee we have tried to obtain information from the Minister about how he intends the Bill to work in practice. It has been difficult, because the Minister has not been co-operative, and because the word "prescribed" is mentioned 57 times in the Bill. The Government's haste is so great that they cannot be bothered to work out the details of the legislation; they simply want to take more powers to themselves. If we wanted further proof of the Government's haste and the fact that the legislation has not been thought through fully, we had it this morning with yet more Government amendments being presented on the day that the guillotine motion is before the House.

This morning we were presented with another part of the Bill, which is almost a Bill in itself—four new clauses covering four sides of the Amendment Paper. They will all need to be debated in the limited time allowed by the Government. The new clauses do not tell us much. They are typical of the approach adopted by the Minister. To illustrate that point I shall quote new clause 16 which the Minister has just tabled: Regulations under this section may make such procedural, incidental, supplementary and transitional provision as may appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary"—

Mr. Graham

He does not know his own mind.

Mrs. Taylor

—"or expedient."

Mr. Graham

Typical.

Mrs. Taylor

That sums up the Government's attitude to the Bill. They want us to leave it to them to do what they believe is expedient. The Government are frightened of scrutiny of the Bill. We are opposed to it in principle, but we wish to scrutinise it in detail. The Government are afraid of that procedure, but we are not. We wish to continue to discuss the Bill. We shall vote against the motion this evening.

9.44 pm
The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. John Stanley)

We have had a wide-ranging debate that has oscillated between a discussion of the general procedures of the House in respect of timetable motions, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) made a most thoughtful speech, and the much narrower issue of the timetable motion on this Bill, to which I shall address my remarks.

The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor) made a most significant remark on Second Reading. She said: The Opposition resent the fact that parliamentary time is being spent on such irrelevant measures."—[Official Report, 23 November 1982; Vol. 32, c. 725.] That was a strange comment for her to make in view of what has happened in Committee since then, because it is clear that once the Bill went to Committee, the supposed resentment of the Opposition about spending time on this Bill died a rapid death. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) said in an excellent speech, the Opposition's tactics in Committee have been to expend much time and make slow progress. Although the Government are moving the timetable motion, it was undoubtedly precipitated by the action of the Opposition in Committee. As I shall demonstrate in some detail, it is clear that the Opposition took a deliberate decision to go exceptionally slowly.

The hon. Lady's chief instrument of delay has been the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). The hon. Gentleman, from whom we heard a great deal in Committee, has performed like the parliamentary equivalent of a cement mixer. He has been churning on and on and on in the same spot. He has gone round and round the amendment under discussion and has poured out with unfailing regularity a remarkable diet of glutinous sludge. He has done so during 23 speeches and 120 interventions. Even by the hallowed traditions of this House, the hon. Gentleman has given us a new insight into the meaning of the word "repetition".

However, I would not do justice to the other Opposition members of the Committee if I did not mention their contribution to securing some delay in the progress of the Bill. All Opposition Members have contributed to its slow progress to date. I must make an exception of the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright), the Social Democratic member of the Committee, because his contributions have been to the point and relatively brief.

However, the hon. Gentleman made a fascinating speech tonight that I am sure is destined to become a textbook classic for the SDP. His speech will be read out at every candidate's conference as the model political posture for an aspiring SDP politician. The hon. Gentleman told us with great ernestness and conviction why he felt unable to vote for this motion. He then told us with great earnestness and conviction why he felt unable to vote against this motion. Then he told us with great earnestness and conviction why he was resolutely determined to adopt a policy of "positive abstention" tonight.

Mr. Cartwright

I am sorry that the idea of positive abstention seems strange to the Minister. It does not seem strange to some of his hon. Friends. Ten of his hon. Friends abstained positively last night on the immigration rules. Does he have the same attitude to them?

Mr. Stanley

The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that, having voted for the Bill on Second Reading, there is some consistency in trying to get it through to Royal Assent. Labour Members have all made a signal contribution to the delay. To win one's campaign medal for the Labour party in Standing Committee F, one had to make an hour-plus speech as many times as possible. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton, West. She has led her troops from the front and has already gained the hour-plus medal with three bars.

If any Labour Members are in any doubt as to the slow progress, an interesting comparison can be made between the progess made on this Bill and the progress made on the Housing Bill in 1980. If the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) adopted a hare-like posture in 1980, whereas the hon. Member for Bolton, West has decided to play a tortoise role in 1983. The present Bill has 40-odd clauses and is confined to only two major subjects. The 1980 Bill contained 120 clauses and covered 10 major subjects.

Despite being one third the length and infinitely narrower in scope, the progress of the present Bill through Committee has in every way been markedly slower than that of the 1980 Bill. The Bill has now been in Committee for a total of 90 hours.

In the same number of hours in Committee in 1980, vastly more progress had been made than on this Bill. It dealt with the right-to-buy legislation from scratch, as well as with the whole of the tenants charter, shorthold provisions, the assured tenancy provisions, other private rented sector provisions, fair rent phasing, controlled tenancies, resident landlord lettings, and a host of other matters. All that was achieved in the first 90 hours of the Standing Committee proceedings on the 1980 Bill.

Mrs. Ann Taylor

Disgraceful.

Mr. Stanley

It is symptomatic of the hon. Lady's attitude that she describes that as disgraceful. It is fortunate that the right hon. Member for Ardwick, who came top in the shadow Cabinet election, has mercifully vacated his place.

After 90 hours in Committee on the 1980 Bill, we had reached the end of clause 79. After 90 hours in Committee on this Bill, we had only reached the end of clause 22. That is a difference of more than 50 clauses for the same expenditure of time. That is the clearest possible sign of the extent to which the Opposition have sought to delay progress on the Bill.

Had the Opposition done no more than achieve the same rate of progress on this 43-clause Bill as they made on the first 43 clauses of the 1980 Bill, this timetable motion would have been completely unnecessary, as consideration of the Bill would have been completed in 50 hours. It would now be out of Committee and have been reported to the House. No guillotine motion has been more self-evidently brought down on themselves by the Opposition than this one.

The Government have sought to achieve progress in the normal way. There have been references to that in the debate. The Government, quite reasonably, sought to move the closure 12 times in Committee. On 11 of those 12 occasions, the Chair accepted that that motion should be put to the vote. That is the clearest possible sign that the Chair felt that the amendments concerned had been fully debated.

Despite our efforts to make progress with the Bill, it is clear that greater progress must be made if the opportunities provided by the legislation are to be put into effect.

As my hon. Friends made clear during the debate, a great many people—in particular, many council tenants—simply cannot afford to wait months and months for their new legal rights under this legislation.

Thousands of families up and down the country are waiting for the enactment of the Bill with eager and urgent anticipation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) said, thousands of tenants have been frustrated in exercising their right to buy because, for example, their homes are on leasehold land and their Labour-controlled councils want to take every possible opportunity to prevent them from buying their homes, even to the extent of refusing to accept the freehold interest as a gift after the tenant has bought it himself. Tenants throughout the country on leasehold land want the Bill to make more rapid progress, to receive full consideration and enactment. Many tenants in Bolton, including tenants in the hon. Lady's constituency, are looking to her to represent their interests tonight so that they get their rights under this legislation. I am sorry that it looks as though they will be disappointed because their own Member of Parliament is obstructing their wishes to buy their homes in Bolton.

Mrs. Ann Taylor

Will the Minister explain to the House and to my constituents, for whom he has such touching concern, how the thousands of people on the waiting list in Bolton will be helped by the Bill?

Mr. Stanley

In the same way as many people are now being helped—by the hundreds of millions of pounds in capital receipts at the disposal of local authorities to increase their housing investment programmes.

In addition to tenants whose homes are on leasehold land, many thousands of tenants of charitable housing associations are looking forward to the enactment of this legislation. Many thousands of relatively low income tenants are looking forward to exercising their right of shared ownership. Tenants in the city of Norwich are anxiously waiting for the enactment of clause 17. They will get back their right to buy, of which they were so disgracefully cheated by Norwich council's device of telling its tenants that they could not exchange their homes unless at the same time they deprived themselves of the right to buy. That scandalous device will be invalidated by this legislation.

The adult children of tenants, some of whom have been paying rent for 20 or 30 years, have not been allowed a penny of discount by some Labour councils. They too will get a discount entitlement under the Bill. A considerable number of tenants are facing unreasonable covenants and conditions that have been imposed on their right-to-buy purchases. They may be able to benefit from our proposal to enable the Secretary of State to assist tenants who feel that they have unreasonable covenants. They will be able to take legal action, and will be assisted in doing so, so that there is a proper opportunity for a court to decide whether or not the covenants are reasonable.

It is quite clear that many thousands of tenants are seeking to excercise their right to buy, but will be able to do so only if there is satisfactory progress on the Bill.

The Opposition have made it unmistakably clear that they are not interested in securing a reasonable rate of progress on the Bill. Their tactics are quite plain, and have been since the first session of Standing Committee F. The Opposition's tactics are to delay the Bill for the longest possible time in the hope that it will be prevented from reaching the statute book by an early general election. Their objective is to spin out consideration of the Bill until the late summer. It would be wrong to deny Parliament this opportunity to reach a decision on the Bill because of the months of delay that have been fabricated upstairs. It is a highly beneficial Bill, and I therefore ask the House to support the motion.

Question put:—

The House divided: Aves 297. Noes 219.

Question agreed to.

Resolved, That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:

Forward to